Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00679, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00679    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiffs Rosalinda Rodriguez and Leslie Perez’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiffs Rosalinda Rodriguez and Leslie Perez (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

Plaintiffs have been tenants at the property located at 1398 S. Gibbs, Pomona, CA 91766 (“subject property”) since on or about August 1, 2016. Defendant Emelia Ramirez (“Ramirez”) was responsible for managing and maintaining the subject property, but maintained same in a substandard condition and failed to make repairs, despite Plaintiffs’ complaints. Plaintiffs were forced to move out of the subject property.

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ramirez and Does 1-50 for:

1.                  Failure to Provide Habitable Dwelling

2.                  Breach of Covenant and Right to Quiet Enjoyment

3.                  Private Nuisance

4.                  Negligence

On August 25, 2022, Ramirez’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for January 8, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiffs have now submitted declarations; however, they have not provided the court with any documentary evidence supporting their claims, including, but not limited to, a copy of the underlying lease agreement, text messages, video recording(s), inspection report(s) and pictures, as referenced in ¶¶ 2 and 5-8 of Rodriguez’s and Perez’s respective declarations.

2.         Plaintiffs’ respective declarations are devoid of facts as to when they notified Ramirez of purportedly defective conditions at the subject property, what these defective conditions were, whether Ramirez was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiencies and what damages Plaintiffs sustained. It is unclear to the court how Plaintiffs’ damages have been calculated. It is also unclear when Plaintiffs moved out of the subject property.

3.                  Again, Plaintiffs’ complaint states only that Plaintiffs’ damages are “in excess of

$25,000.00.” (Complaint, ¶ 39; see also, ¶ 46 [“Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages . . . in an amount to be determined at trial but in any event $25,000.00 or over”] and ¶ 55 [“Plaintiffs have suffered damages . . . in an amount to be proved at trial are [sic] $25,000.00 and over”].) Plaintiff, however, appears to seek $75,000.00 or more in damages. “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824; Code Civ. Proc. § 580, subd. (a) [“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115 . . .”].)

4.                  The court will not accept any further piecemeal submissions. Plaintiffs’ counsel is

instructed to provide the court with a full and complete default prove-up application in the future, which includes a Request for Entry of Default/Court Judgment on Judicial Council Form CIV-100 [Rev. January 1, 2023].